You know, I used google and got nothing but makeup images of halloween costumes.

But, like the 0.9999999 is one, the point still stands

Seriously, by using the data that I got from Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population - and the number 33 (assuming that number is extant today, not just reported cases up to 1984 as stated in the extract. Assuming large rather than realistic.)

It is curious.

33 out of 7 billion today vs ?? out of 200 million at the turn of the millennium.

I assume they're basing this off the idea that the smaller world population would mean a proportionally larger amount of tailed people, which makes no sense because the ratio of people born with tails to anyone else would probably stay perfectly level.

Either that, or it's some BS about humans being thoroughly evolved since then so tails are now less likely to show up, which is even sillier.

But most online factoid collections are full of complete nonsense anyway.

What if the implication is, 2000 years ago, people born with tails and tail-like growths were more often killed at birth as "monsters" or whatever, and/or maybe people with the genes for such a growth might have had genes that made them, in a "Darwinian" (for certain values of Darwinian) sense, less likely to pass on their genes in tougher times, so that nowadays the genetic predisposition for tails is much rarer?